Enlightenment Finally

[maestro]

If Gurdjieff possessed such great clarity of mind, why he did not cease engaging in these baseless, trivial speculations, which, as you say, have no bearing on understanding the mind? We can judge him on the basis that he did engage in these trivial matters - and quite a lot, by the looks of it.

Well according to my definition enlightenment is the end of (mental) suffering. With quite accurate perception about the workings of the mind (as Gurdjieff had) he could not have suffered mentally seems to be quite true. Now whatever else he engaged in does not have any bearing on enlightenment whatsoever.

[David Quinn]

If Gurdjieff possessed such great clarity of mind, why he did not cease engaging in these baseless, trivial speculations, which, as you say, have no bearing on understanding the mind? We can judge him on the basis that he did engage in these trivial matters - and quite a lot, by the looks of it.

Well according to my definition enlightenment is the end of (mental) suffering. With quite accurate perception about the workings of the mind (as Gurdjieff had) he could not have suffered mentally seems to be quite true. Now whatever else he engaged in does not have any bearing on enlightenment whatsoever.

Exactly, so why did he do it? All it did was confuse and mystify people.

Perhaps that was the point. He did have the air of one who enjoyed performing in front of people, keeping them off-balanced, and dominating their minds. Cleverly mixing irrationality with pragmatic teachings is an effective way of doing that.

If enlightenment is defined to be the end of suffering, then suicide would be the quickest and most effective option. Everyone who has died are Buddhas one and all.

-

[maestro]

Perhaps that was the point. He did have the air of one who enjoyed performing in front of people, keeping them off-balanced, and dominating their minds. Cleverly mixing irrationality with pragmatic teachings is an effective way of doing that.

He did seem like a shrewd showman, from the autobiography also it seems he liked to play with people. But on the other hand he asked them to verify for themselves whatever he told them and not accept it otherwise.

If enlightenment is defined to be the end of suffering, then suicide would be the quickest and most effective option. Everyone who has died are Buddhas one and all.

I forgot to add the constraint of intact consciousness, thus drugs etc are also out.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

In a more existential way one could say that ego is the way we [which could as well be at times some subconscious self-regulating process] envision ourselves as entity in relation to the world, a world that thereby always will remain in a mirror-like relation to this entity.

You seem to be conflating persona with ego. Do you recognize a difference?

This means that ego is in everything we see and do by default. If ego would stop being asserted one would [cease] recognizing anything. There would be no means to relate to anything at all.

How so? You can relate just fine without the idea that "I" as an individual entity am relating. For instance, when you dream and know you are dreaming, there is still character that relates to its environment despite knowing that it is not distinct from its environment.

This is what I suspect was originally meant by there being "no mountain" during spiritual progress. This is quite literal at the deepest level: once the ego function ceases literally the world collapses - the whole universe ceases to be.

Again, you haven't shown this while I can show just the opposite is the case.

It's easy to see that the egoless state will not endure as we need a reality principle to survive. Therefore a new 'self-image' has to arise which will create for us 'mountain' again. This is why almost all enlightenment traditions talk about a new or higher self, a new birth or a different path or wise.

Enlightenment traditions talk about "no self", not a new and better self.

[David Quinn]

I forgot to add the constraint of intact consciousness, thus drugs etc are also out.

Unshakable religious belief can put an end to mental suffering.

-

[maestro]

Unshakable religious belief can put an end to mental suffering.

I think you mean religion helps you to be somewhat calm in a grave crisis.

Most mental suffering occurs moment to moment, religion cannot tackle it.

[samadhi]

maestro,

I still don't see the difference between what you're talking about and a generic "new, improved" self. Is a new, improved self really what you regard as enlightenment? You don't see any flaws in ego other than the lack of clear thinking and the need for greater effort?

[maestro]

I still don't see the difference between what you're talking about and a generic "new, improved" self.

I think that there is no self should be clear upfront. What is to be improved is the mind, which has become quite corrupted.

You don't see any flaws in ego other than the lack of clear thinking and the need for greater effort?

The ego or a permanent center does not exist at all. It is an implicit belief which hinders the mind, therefore it has to go.

I think you are refering to the other thread, where I was discussing an interesting possibility raised by Gurdjieff. The permanent self being created there is quite a different beast than the ego. It is a combination of right thinking and constant awareness.

[samadhi]

I think that there is no self should be clear upfront. What is to be improved is the mind, which has become quite corrupted.

Okay, well then your improvement depends on effort. When you don't make an effort or get tired of making an effort, wither your improvement?

The ego or a permanent center does not exist at all. It is an implicit belief which hinders the mind, therefore it has to go.

Does the ego get rid of itself by effort?

I think you are refering to the other thread, where I was discussing an interesting possibility raised by Gurdjieff. The permanent self being created there is quite a different beast than the ego. It is a combination of right thinking and constant awareness.

I had just read the last few posts between you and David. I'll take another look.

By the way, it's been at least a week or two since this thread launched. How goes the suffering or lack thereof?

[maestro]

Okay, well then your improvement depends on effort. When you don't make an effort or get tired of making an effort, wither your improvement?

Improvement is natural, efforts are made quite by themselves and even when efforts are not made improvement is happening. As Gurdjieff said, war or peace we always make a profit.

Does the ego get rid of itself by effort?

The belief in an implicit self can be got rid of through logic alone. Much better through logic and experience (or internal observation). I am sure here David, Dan Kevin among others are free of the ego.

This killing of the ego is not enough to finish suffering and other delusions though which are all habits, even when the implicit belief in ego is discarded, there remains its habitual fragments which create suffering.

By the way, it's been at least a week or two since this thread launched. How goes the suffering or lack thereof?

When I meant lack of suffering I did not mean that suffering has disappeared, but that the process has begun which leads to the disappearance of suffering, thus I did not distinguish between the end and the path.

Of course as time goes on habits are weakening and awareness is increasing. Things which would have earlier turned the mind topsy turvy for weeks, now register barely as a feeling in the gut. Something like that happened today itself and there was barely any upheaval, and the mind itself saw that there was no point in generating any suffering.

[clyde]

Are you positing that we are (equal) ego? Or do you mean that along with other attributes (body and mind, etc.), ego is an attribute of us?

It's not an attribute you can turn on or off. I also disagree with the idea of abandoning or getting 'rid' of ego as some others would suggest but it depends really on what is defined to be ego. Some describe a certain aspect, I try to address the whole process.

This is not the forum to go too much into scientific models but I'd like to mention that at the ground we're talking about a natural brain function. I see it as a type of mirror image created within neurological processes that performs an initial function to manage the complex interface between brain and impulses leading in and out of the nervous center. Check out the cockpit of a large airliner to get the picture.

In a more existential way one could say that ego is the way we [which could as well be at times some subconscious self-regulating process] envision ourselves as entity in relation to the world, a world that thereby always will remain in a mirror-like relation to this entity.

This means that ego is in everything we see and do by default. If ego would stop being asserted one would seize recognizing anything. There would be no means to relate to anything at all. This is what I suspect was originally meant by there being "no mountain" during spiritual progress. This is quite literal at the deepest level: once the ego function ceases literally the world collapses - the whole universe ceases to be. It's safer to start with only a few things first though to get the idea. When one is attached too much to the world a sudden ego-death, even a temporary hick-up can easily turn into a great panic.

It's easy to see that the egoless state will not endure as we need a reality principle to survive. Therefore a new 'self-image' has to arise which will create for us 'mountain' again. This is why almost all enlightenment traditions talk about a new or higher self, a new birth or a different path or wise.

Diebert;

You define ego as “a type of mirror image created within neurological processes that performs an initial function to manage the complex interface between brain and impulses leading in and out of the nervous center.” This, it seems to me, defines ego as a neurological construct.

OK. Given your definition, the following questions arise:

Is the ego present in a newborn infant (or at the arising of the pre-birth nervous system); i.e., when does the ego arise?

On what basis do you assert that ego cannot “turn on and off”? In fact, you write that one must be careful of “sudden ego-death, even a temporary hick-up” as this may cause panic. And later write that “the egoless state will not endure”. You seem to acknowledge temporary egoless states and isn’t that the very meaning of “turn on and off”?

On what basis do you assert: “If ego would stop being asserted one would seize [cease] recognizing anything”?

Finally, is the “new or higher self” another name for “a type of mirror image created within neurological processes that performs an initial function to manage the complex interface between brain and impulses leading in and out of the nervous center”; that is, the ego with a new name? If not, how is the self different from the ego?

clyde

[divine focus]

In a more existential way one could say that ego is the way we [which could as well be at times some subconscious self-regulating process] envision ourselves as entity in relation to the world, a world that thereby always will remain in a mirror-like relation to this entity.

This means that ego is in everything we see and do by default. If ego would stop being asserted one would seize recognizing anything. There would be no means to relate to anything at all. This is what I suspect was originally meant by there being "no mountain" during spiritual progress. This is quite literal at the deepest level: once the ego function ceases literally the world collapses - the whole universe ceases to be. It's safer to start with only a few things first though to get the idea. When one is attached too much to the world a sudden ego-death, even a temporary hick-up can easily turn into a great panic.

It's easy to see that the egoless state will not endure as we need a reality principle to survive. Therefore a new 'self-image' has to arise which will create for us 'mountain' again. This is why almost all enlightenment traditions talk about a new or higher self, a new birth or a different path or wise.

This "ego" is simply our objective physical awareness. It is dependent on beliefs for its perceptions of physicality. The "no mountain" stage refers to the change in operation from control to direction while beliefs are still mostly judged as right or wrong. It is necessary to believe in a single-mindedness of focus for the continuous practice of direction. The clarity of perception corresponding to the "mountain again" perception involves being familiar and accustomed enough with direction of attention that the belief in the rightness of direction may be accepted. This coupled with the actual direction allows the acceptance of many other beliefs, providing the ability to focus in many different directions from a center of intent. Mountains may again be seen as mountains with the effortless recognition of essence through direction.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This, it seems to me, defines ego as a neurological construct.

Only in a sense because describing something in neurological terms doesn't necessarily help defining much unless one is a scientist. The reason I switched to the language of science was to demonstrate my claim it seemed 'natural', not something bolted on by mistake. In discussions I prefer an existential context; the world people are experiencing and dealing with every moment.

Is the ego present in a newborn infant (or at the arising of the pre-birth nervous system); i.e., when does the ego arise?

After careful testing I established a value of three months, 2 weeks, 1 day and 33 minutes. but honestly I don't know. When exactly does the day begin for the average man without descending into limited scientific language?

You seem to acknowledge temporary egoless states and isn’t that the very meaning of “turn on and off”?

I meant turning off and then go about your way as you did before. If it would be merely illusion, a bolt-on, by-product, that could be imagined. But because of how I define ego, an egoless state certainly is not a state that would keep you self-sufficient. It would be like going blind and dumb.

On what basis do you assert: “If ego would stop being asserted one would seize [cease] recognizing anything”?

This is because one relates and deals with the things defined around us by the mechanism of mirroring or relating it to a self-sense. This is the normal mode. This already starts before birth mostly subconscious and it stays mostly subconscious as most processing takes place there.

the ego with a new name? If not, how is the self different from the ego?

As I described ego it doesn't need to be replaced with a new thing. But there does occur a fundamental change in its functioning. Some would say that the change is so fundamental we shouldn't talk about 'ego' anymore. Such idea has its limitations too in my opinion.

Leaves the question what this fundamental change in functioning is. You ask me to summarize the whole body of wisdom in a few lines? That which once was lost is now found. What disappears is the lostness which was unreal but stressing. But the former that ('which once was lost') doesn't disappear until it does.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You seem to be conflating persona with ego. Do you recognize a difference?

You are still talking about something what's happening on the stage while I try to talk about the stage itself, the lighting and the script.

You can relate just fine without the idea that "I" as an individual entity am relating. For instance, when you dream and know you are dreaming, there is still character that relates to its environment despite knowing that it is not distinct from its environment.

You're splitting the I in a part that is relating to the dream environment and a part that is relating to the dream-I. It's an interesting example of how the ego splits and mirrors by its very nature. It's the same with inner dialog, mediation, imaginary friends, praying and so on.

This is quite literal at the deepest level: once the ego function ceases literally the world collapses - the whole universe ceases to be.

Again, you haven't shown this while I can show just the opposite is the case.

I'll never be able to show how the whole universe ceases to be and you always will be able to show how it doesn't :)

Enlightenment traditions talk about "no self", not a new and better self.

This only demonstrates to me you never examined the tradition very thoroughly. The traditional no-self, no-doing phrasings have quite deep meanings that seem well researched and described. And they exactly support the concept of 'new self'. This is because a self always appears in the doing and the relating. It's just treated in another way now.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This "ego" is simply our objective physical awareness. It is dependent on beliefs for its perceptions of physicality. The "no mountain" stage refers to the change in operation from control to direction while beliefs are still mostly judged as right or wrong.

You're not very clear here. Could you rephrase?

To me the "no mountain" means just "no mountain", or no-whatever is in view or mind at that moment. There's perception but no way to relate to it anymore. Not only the words or beliefs but its very reality (which is in the end a form of meaning) disappears. But if the mountain would collapse and fall on me it won't make a difference to an observer though. That's why I think it's not a state that should be entered unprepared or thought about too lightly or taken as just a change in perspective like a drug trip.

[mikiel]

S:"Enlightenment traditions talk about "no self", not a new and better self."

Agreed.

DvR: "This only demonstrates to me you never examined the tradition very thoroughly. The traditional no-self, no-doing phrasings have quite deep meanings that seem well researched and described. And they exactly support the concept of 'new self'. This is because a self always appears in the doing and the relating. It's just treated in another way now."

Advaita Vedanta is maybe the best known tradition describing enlightenment as selflessness.

Here is a link I've shared here before with "selflessness" qoutes from enlightened ones of several other traditions:
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless

mikiel

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: You seem to be conflating persona with ego. Do you recognize a difference?

Diebert: You are still talking about something what's happening on the stage while I try to talk about the stage itself, the lighting and the script.

Could you be any more obscure? Just answer the question.

sam: You can relate just fine without the idea that "I" as an individual entity am relating. For instance, when you dream and know you are dreaming, there is still character that relates to its environment despite knowing that it is not distinct from its environment.

Diebert: You're splitting the I in a part that is relating to the dream environment and a part that is relating to the dream-I. It's an interesting example of how the ego splits and mirrors by its very nature. It's the same with inner dialog, mediation, imaginary friends, praying and so on.

No one is arguing whether identity exists on many levels or not. Your point however that you cannot relate except as an ego is patently false.

Diebert: This is quite literal at the deepest level: once the ego function ceases literally the world collapses - the whole universe ceases to be.

sam: Again, you haven't shown this while I can show just the opposite is the case.

Diebert: I'll never be able to show how the whole universe ceases to be and you always will be able to show how it doesn't :)

Then how do you know it collapses? Those who have realized seem perfectly able to relate. So on what are you basing your opinion?

sam: Enlightenment traditions talk about "no self", not a new and better self.

Diebert: This only demonstrates to me you never examined the tradition very thoroughly.

Let's see, I've lived at a Therevadan meditation center for a year, how about you?

The traditional no-self, no-doing phrasings have quite deep meanings that seem well researched and described.

Yeah, by those with egos like you no doubt.

And they exactly support the concept of 'new self'. This is because a self always appears in the doing and the relating. It's just treated in another way now.

I don't care what researchers think. What about those who are actually enlightened, what do they think? Are you interested?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Advaita Vedanta is maybe the best known tradition describing enlightenment as selflessness.

You're not even in the discussion as you ignored the way I defined ego so far. I'm outlining the deeper nature of ego in quite a different way than you have been swallowing so far in your life. Selflessness or selfishness has nothing to do with it. Unless you want to define the will to live as selfishness too. But then you'll really have to go back to the Vedanta and check if you missed something, my friend.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No one is arguing whether identity exists on many levels or not. Your point however that you cannot relate except as an ego is patently false.

If you had payed attention to how I defined ego you'd see it makes perfect sense. Perhaps you don't want ego to have anything to do with identity on deeper levels. It's all fine with me, ego is just a word, like 'love'. People make it mean all kinds of things and all I try to do is offer another way to look at it because I see many people struggle with the current views going around.

Diebert: I'll never be able to show how the whole universe ceases to be and you always will be able to show how it doesn't :)

Then how do you know it collapses? Those who have realized seem perfectly able to relate. So on what are you basing your opinion?

Who are those? In my opinion, they are able to relate because they have still a constructed identity or ego. And they're still creating a universe out of thin air. Fair enough, not?

]Let's see, I've lived at a Therevadan meditation center for a year, how about you?

I once stuck out my leg and let Maharishi Yogi trip when he walked by us. My god, we had a good laugh!

]I don't care what researchers think. What about those who are actually enlightened, what do they think?

Nevertheless sooner or later you'll have to find out for yourself as if there was nobody on the planet left that possesses sanity and nobody in the past ever was sane. Everybody dies alone.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: Your point however that you cannot relate except as an ego is patently false.

Diebert: If you had payed attention to how I defined ego you'd see it makes perfect sense. Perhaps you don't want ego to have anything to do with identity on deeper levels. It's all fine with me, ego is just a word, like 'love'. People make it mean all kinds of things and all I try to do is offer another way to look at it because I see many people struggle with the current views going around.

I asked you how you defined it and you didn't answer the question! Now it appears it doesn't matter what the definition is, whatever works for you. Well then why have a discussion about your idea at all? Whatever indeed ...

sam: Those who have realized seem perfectly able to relate. So on what are you basing your opinion?

Diebert: Who are those?

Historical figures for one.

sam: Those who have realized seem perfectly able to relate. So on what are you basing your opinion?

Diebert: In my opinion, they are able to relate because they have still a constructed identity or ego. And they're still creating a universe out of thin air. Fair enough, not?

You are assuming the conclusion. Is that the best you can do?

I once stuck out my leg and let Maharishi Yogi trip when he walked by us. My god, we had a good laugh!

Funny. So you have no background, that's what I suspected.

sam: I don't care what researchers think. What about those who are actually enlightened, what do they think?

Diebert: Nevertheless sooner or later you'll have to find out for yourself as if there was nobody on the planet left that possesses sanity and nobody in the past ever was sane. Everybody dies alone.

Your answer isn't to the point. Yes, we all have to find out for ourselves, so what? It doesn't mean the experience of others is irrelevant to the point you were making. So why not look at it?

[mikiel]

DvR: "You're not even in the discussion as you ignored the way I defined ego so far. I'm outlining the deeper nature of ego in quite a different way than you have been swallowing so far in your life. Selflessness or selfishness has nothing to do with it. Unless you want to define the will to live as selfishness too. But then you'll really have to go back to the Vedanta and check if you missed something, my friend."

Since I am new to the discussion, maybe I can bring a fresh perspective to the discussion, if you are open to it. As a longtime psychotherapist, I am very familiar with a wide variety of definitionsof, and perspectives on "ego."

I suggest a simple "This is who I am" as a functional definition based on each person's whole life of conditioning/programing. Next, have you personally ever experienced a radical departure from the above sense of personal identity? (A sincere question hoping for a direct answer.)
"This one" experienced a total disintegration of that 'personal identity' 14 yrs ago. The "this is who I am" was seen as mere programing of the robot's bio-computer/brain, and that program was deleted. (Long story... see my "Journey to Awakening" page at http://www.consciousunity.org)
Then Who was I? There was/is no real separation or barrier between "this consciousness as an individual" and the One Omnipresent consciousness. I Am God, as/in and living through this individual. This is the awakening. There is no personal identity left.
Do you or have you ever had any such experience of transformation?
This is not a question about what you or i have read or studied however deeply. Will you answer my questions directly?
mikiel

[Carl G]

I seems he was clear about working of the mind, about the fantastic theories, about the moon etc we can hardly judge him, as he cannot verify them empirically anyhow. They seem absurd to us in our scientific context.

In any case the mind is the main hindrance to achieving the state of balance known as enlightenment and is the one which needs to be tackled. Theories about other matters are hardly any help (in this pursuit).

If Gurdjieff possessed such great clarity of mind, why he did not cease engaging in these baseless, trivial speculations, which, as you say, have no bearing on understanding the mind? We can judge him on the basis that he did engage in these trivial matters - and quite a lot, by the looks of it.

-

" I ask you to believe nothing that you cannot verify for yourself. " - G. I. Gurdjieff

[David Quinn]

"And if you can't verify the irrational nonsense that I spout, then it means you still have some way to go before you can be considered awake".

-

[maestro]

Actually some of it makes sense for example the different kinds of fuel required for functioning of various body mechanisms seems plausible. If you for example have a great fit of anger then you will be unable to do heavy mental work for the day, but you can still do vigorous physical work. Gurdjieff's explanation would be that you have spent all the fuel required for the thinking mind in that fit of anger. This also seems to explain, why your mind works fastest in the mornings.

[divine focus]

This "ego" is simply our objective physical awareness. It is dependent on beliefs for its perceptions of physicality. The "no mountain" stage refers to the change in operation from control to direction while beliefs are still mostly judged as right or wrong.

You're not very clear here. Could you rephrase?

To me the "no mountain" means just "no mountain", or no-whatever is in view or mind at that moment. There's perception but no way to relate to it anymore. Not only the words or beliefs but its very reality (which is in the end a form of meaning) disappears. But if the mountain would collapse and fall on me it won't make a difference to an observer though. That's why I think it's not a state that should be entered unprepared or thought about too lightly or taken as just a change in perspective like a drug trip.

This is true. What I meant was that your term of "ego" is simply the perception of physical reality. All of physical reality is constructed through belief, as it all stems from imagination. You are correct in stating that without our physical perception, we would not be in this physical reality! A new "ego" or perception is cultivated by seeking meaning in a much simpler and even--at first--boring avenue than one is used to. As beliefs are accepted, i.e. unidentified with, a plethora of meaning returns. Physical reality is seen for what it is, and it is used in a non-attached manner (not detached!) to understand the self.